upgrade_risk_report

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, making behavioral traits clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what data is accessed or what side effects occur. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not contradict but adds minimal value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 7 words, which is very concise. However, it may be too terse, lacking details that would be helpful. It is front-loaded and clear, but brevity reduces its usefulness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (8 optional parameters, output schema exists) and no parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain what the risk report includes, how inputs influence the report, or any examples. Contextual completeness is low.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no parameter-level guidance. The description does not mention which parameters affect the report or how to use them. This severely limits the agent's ability to correctly invoke the tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'Report' and clearly specifies the resource ('Odoo upgrade and JSON-2 migration risks'). It distinguishes from other tools on the server, which include various other operations like records, domains, diagnostics, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fit_gap_report) or what prerequisites are needed. Usage is implied based on the tool name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.